World Development Movement report accuses developed countries of threatening behaviour at climate change summits

Leading figures in western governments have been accused of using bullying tactics with developing countries during climate change summits.

The criticisms will cast a shadow over the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which begins tomorrow, in the latest attempt to stabilise greenhouse gas levels around the world.

A new report, published by the World Development Movement, contains previously unpublished testimonies from insiders at both the Copenhagen and CancÃºn climate summits in 2009 and 2010. Officials of developing countries complain of divide-and-rule tactics and threats to withhold vital funds unless agreements are signed.

In one section the report criticises threats by richer countries to withdraw funds to help poorer nations cope with climate change if they failed to sign up to the accord. It says: "The US and the UK openly stated that climate finance would be limited to those that signed up to [it]. Ed Miliband, the UK minister, was blunt about linking the funding of developing countries with accepting the accord. The concerns he raised must be duly noted, he said, 'otherwise we won't operationalise the funds'."

The authors add: "The US said they would deny climate finance to Bolivia and Ecuador because they had objected to the Copenhagen accord proposal. The EU's Connie Hedegaard had also suggested that the small island-state countries "could be 'our best allies because they need finance'."

One diplomat from the tiny Polynesian island of Tuvalu said at the time: "Can I suggest that it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future? Mr President, our future is not for sale."

It is a standard tactic at UN climate meetings for rich countries to try to divide and rule developing countries' negotiating groups. Developing countries admit they are bamboozled by the tactics and are often unable to keep up with the negotiations.

One diplomat told the report's authors: "At one point in Copenhagen there were 26 meetings taking place simultaneously. How can a developing country delegation of two people possibly hope to cope? These numbers are life and death. There is no intention to agree a fair scenario, whether voluntary or by obligation. It's so clear: we only need your signature here, we have figured out everything, we have designed the role of your country, there is no more time, please sign here now.

"Developed countries sit down and delay, and just repeat inanities, and then they go out and tell the media that the developing countries are blocking the negotiations, and all the world believes it, even developing countries!"

Another diplomat said: "There is the small stuff, like travels, scholarships, jobs, but the favours are also small stuff, or so it seems, until the implications come in, especially for developing countries' interests in general. And then there is always the threat to cut off funding for a project, or something, if one gets too aggressive."

In CancÃºn last year the rich countries created a new system of meetings. "It created confusion, it was so hard to challenge this and to say procedurally this is wrong. Procedures were totally ignored. If this would happen in Fifa the whole world would be scandalised!" WDM was told.

Bolivia felt particularly aggrieved by UN tactics in CancÃºn, where its representatives lobbied for deeper cuts in emissions than richer countries were prepared to accept.

According to a Bolivian diplomat, their delegation agreed to participate in a side-meeting on condition that no plenary meeting took place at the same time.

The diplomat said: "Three minutes after they left the hall, an official plenary [to adopt the outcomes of the Kyoto protocol] started. It was a deliberate trick! We could only lodge reservations, and run to try and find our senior negotiators and get them back in to the room."

A NEW treaty covering all of the world's major carbon dioxide emitters, including the US, China and India, will be negotiated following a tumultuous marathon session at the UN climate change summit in Durban yesterday.

The agreement came after developing nations joined with the European Union to isolate China and India, and set in train talks for a new global treaty.

The negotiations will start immediately and are expected to conclude by 2015. The new arrangements will take effect from 2020.

The hard-fought deal to bring all greenhouse gas emitters into a single, legal agreement is the centrepiece of a package of linked outcomes achieved at Durban.

They include a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol for developed nations, the establishment of the framework for a $100 billion-a-year green development fund, and progress on measures to help preserve the rainforests of the Amazon Basin and Indonesia.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who represented Australia at the Durban talks, said the outcome was a spectacular result.

"We now have a mandate to negotiate an agreement with legal effect on every major emitter," Mr Combet said. But critics of the Gillard government's carbon tax package seized on the Durban outcome, claiming Australia's carbon tax was in front of the world on climate change action, and arguing that the lack of a binding global agreement undermined Treasury modelling of the effects of the package.

Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt said the Durban outcome was "even worse" than most had expected and would have significant implications for Australian households, given that the carbon tax was modelled on the major economies, including the US, being part of an international agreement by 2016.

Minerals Council of Australia acting chief executive Brendan Pearson said it was a case of "delay the deadline", and by acting early to introduce "the world's biggest carbon tax, Australia risks being taken for a very expensive ride".

Peter Anderson, chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the Durban decision confirmed that Australia was the frontrunner on bringing in a carbon tax.

"Countries around the world failed to take reciprocal action to Australia's, and as a result we are now looking at at least seven years of eroded competitiveness for our industries," Mr Anderson said.

Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said anything less than an agreement including all major greenhouse gas emitters taking action would not be environmentally effective, and would heighten the risks associated with Australia's approach to reducing greenhouse gases.

But Climate Institute deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson said the outcome from the Durban climate conference represented "real progress, with a step towards a legally binding agreement covering all major emitters, and increased co-operation in financing clean energy and adaptation in the world's poorest nations".

"For the first time, all major greenhouse gas emitters will be negotiating as equal partners towards a legal agreement by 2015," Mr Jackson said.

The World Resources Institute described it as a "major climate deal" that would lead to negotiations on a legally binding agreement covering both developed and developing countries by 2015, covering emissions after 2020.

The EU compared the Durban Platform to the Berlin Mandate from the first Conference Of Parties in 1995, which led to the creation and adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding international agreement to combat climate change.

As part of the wash-up from Durban, Australia will not take on a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol until the new agreement has been finalised.

The Durban conference ran more than 24 hours overtime, with ministers forced to cancel flights and work through the night.

After hours of heated debate, agreement finally came when India and the EU held last-minute discussions on the conference floor at 2.40am to thrash out an acceptable form of words.

EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said: "We believe we have now the possibilities to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force with coverage under the convention applicable to all parties."

Just hours earlier, the Durban conference had threatened to collapse into failure over the

EU's demands to include the phrase "legal instrument" into

a new agreement that would cover the major emitters in the world.

The Durban conference exposed deep-seated divisions between the developed and developing world over the speed with which climate change is being tackled.

But it also produced new allegiances as smaller nations deserted their traditional voting blocs and called for much higher levels of ambition.

Many countries remained angry the Durban conference did not take tougher measures on setting targets and immediately providing investment funds for mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries.

The US was heavily criticised for its longstanding failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

"What we are faced with at the moment is not what is said by countries but what is done by countries," China's chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, said.

"So far some of the countries have made commitments, but they are not realising their commitments by taking appropriate actions.

"We are developing countries. We need to develop, we need to deal with poverty, we need to care for our environment and deal with climate change.

"We are doing things you are not doing."

In an address to the conference, Indian Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan said she was concerned a legally binding document would undermine equity and limit prospects for development.

"The centrepiece of the climate change debate is and has to be equity," she said.

"The equity of burden sharing cannot be shifted.

"This is not about India but is about the entire world. "Does climate change mean you give up equity?"

and it was funny to me that per capita carbon emission of India is just 1.4/1.8 tons as compare to that of Australia of about 20 tons per person but the developing countries who themselves are poor, most of them, were united with EU against India during last Climate talk....

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 Â°C (59 Â°F)[note 1] colder than at present.[2][3][4]

However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[5][6] Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas.[7]

and thats the reason, why these poor countries were against India, China during last Climate summit

Climate aid threat to countries that refuse to back Copenhagen accord
Sunday 11 April 2010

Developing nations claim they are being offered cash to sign up to climate change deal

Rich countries have threatened to cut vital aid to the developing nations if they do not back the deal agreed at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, it has emerged.

The pressure on poor countries to support the US, EU and UK-brokered Copenhagen accord came as 190 countries resumed UN climate talks in Bonn in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion.

"The pressure to back the west has been intense," said a senior African diplomat. "It was done at a very high level and nothing was written down. It was made very clear by the EU, UK, France and the US that if they did not back them then they would suffer."

According to other African climate diplomats, threats to cut aid were accompanied by promises of financial support for countries that complied.

"There was definite strong-arming of countries. A lot were left in no doubt that there would be repercussions if they did not associate themselves with the accord," said Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, in London.

Yesterday it emerged that the US is to cut climate aid to Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries who have refused to sign up to the accord. But the outgoing UN climate change chief, Yvo de Boer, said: "Bolivia is losing $2.5m in climate funds. That's about what the presidential palace pays for toilet paper a year. Bullying is not an effective instrument."

Earlier this year, Karl Falkenberg, director-general for environment at the European Commission, signalled that countries that did not fully support the accord might not qualify for future funds. "It is not money for free, we are helping developing countries to make more of an effort than they could do on their own."

Although the accord is not legally binding and was not adopted by the UN, more than 112 countries have so far "associated" with it. They include 14 African countries that depend on aid from the EU, UK and France.

It commits rich countries to holding emissions to a rise of 2C, provides for $30bn (Â£19.5bn) a year to be found in the short term for developing countries to adapt to climate change, and up to $100bn a year in the long term.

Some signatories will be richly rewarded for backing the weak agreement. Ethiopia expects to earn nearly $1bn from climate change funds. However, 90 poor countries have refused to associate with it, mostly arguing it will not reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The 17th Conference of Contracting Parties (COP17) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which closed on Dec. 9, focused on the issue of how developed countries should prolong the Kyoto Protocol and fulfill their emissions reduction duties.

At the conference, Xie Zhenhua, leader of the Chinese delegation, gave three pieces of advice to state China's stance and show its sincerity. Xie's speech was well received by the audience.

The first emissions reduction period (2008-2012) of the Kyoto Protocol is about to end, but the new global emissions reduction framework has not been formed yet. Therefore, a "blank emissions reduction period" will probably appear at least between 2013 and 2020.

Especially, since the United Nations' Carbon Market based on the Clean Development Mechanism is still undefined, the relevant environmental protection efforts made by every country will also be suspended.

Therefore, the issues such as how the Kyoto Protocol should be prolonged to form the second emissions reduction mechanism and how corresponding supervision measures should be made, were the core topics for discussion at the Durban Conference.

Meanwhile, from the viewpoint of the entire world's actual effect in dealing with climate change, finding a fundamental way for all countries to jointly participate in the long-term framework and practically fulfill their "common but differential duties" was also promoted as a core topic of the conference.

But developed countries planned game tactics and actively built a negotiating advantage for battling the climate initiative to ensure a dominant position. For example, Japan planned a strategy to respond to the three constraints of the Durban conference, including a proposal for a bilateral dialogue to collapse the Basic Four with the intention of getting exclusive benefits by entering their reduction emissions market. :meeting:

It emphasized the role of Africa and aimed to get another resource right and seize the geopolitical space though aid :meeting:. It opposed the extension of the Kyoto Protocol and proposed "the Japanese program" alone to highlight the Japanese image and battle the climate initiative.

The European Union proposed the extension of the Kyoto Protocol by the time of passing the proposed higher targets, and its purpose is to lead the moral high ground to ensure the control position "carbon trading market" control position and force developing countries to make reduction emission according to their setting conditions.

United States seceded from the "Kyoto Protocol" in early 2001 and refused to fulfill emission reduction obligations at the beginning. Now for the Obama administration, on the one hand, it made the strategy of actually "zero emissions". For the other hand, it focused their attention on China and India, which belong to the Basic Four and so on. It claimed that it would fulfill its obligations by the premise of "China's accession" to squeeze and contain China by the construction of a climate order.

Developed countries are taking advantage of climate issues and emissions reduction to achieve dominance in the future world order and to invade the environmental markets of developing countries.

This has clearly exposed their undisguised intention of pursuing only their own interests. Developed countries vary dramatically in specific goals and measures and are strongly opposed to one another, leading to little progress in the establishment of a new world climate order. However, they have been good at using their great media influence and mobilizing elite opinion leaders to distract people's attention and to make developing countries scapegoats for various crises.:meeting:

In response to the complex political games among developed countries, the Chinese delegation made China's stance clear and showed the country's sincerity at the Durban climate conference. With the support of the Basic Four countries and the Group of 77, China has united with other developing countries, advocated "laying a solid foundation for the existing framework, making active efforts to produce concrete results, fulfilling committees and enhancing cooperation and mutual trust," adhered to the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, and crested a positive negotiating atmosphere at the conference.

China's right stance and sincerity have earned it wide acclaim and promoted progress in the climate negotiations. Overall, China has played a leading role in promoting an orderly process of global environmental protection.

Furthermore, at the climate conference attended by more than 200 countries, the Chinese delegation released a report that includes information about China's practical efforts to protect the environment and to reduce emissions.

China promised in the report that it will fulfill its international responsibility by continuing to strengthen South-South Cooperation in climate adaptation, capacity building, energy conservation and energy efficiency improvements, and by offering aid within its capacity to other developing countries, especially least developed countries, small island countries and African countries.

The Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) on climate change, a new group of developing countries, have been coordinating their positions on climate change negotiations ahead of the upcoming climate change talks in Doha, Qatar, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has said.

Representatives of a number of developing countries-from Bolivia, China, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Venezuela-attended the first meeting of the group, hosted by China in Beijing last week, according to a statement by the NDRC late Tuesday.

The new grouping, as part of the Group of 77 & China, creates a platform for developing countries with the combined goals of "environmental sustainability, social and economic development, and equity" to exchange views and coordinate positions, it said.

Participants have vowed to work for an "ambitious, equitable and comprehensive outcome" of the upcoming climate change conference in Doha in December.

A top priority for the Doha conference is the adoption of an agreement for a second period of legally-binding emission reduction targets for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol, which start on 1 January 2013, according to the press release.

To be meaningful, the emission reduction targets must be "sufficiently deep" and in line with the requirements of actions to curb rising temperatures, participants were quoted as saying.

Equally important, they added, is a meaningful and comprehensive outcome under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), which is responsible for implementing the Bali Action Plan launched in 2007.

Officials have said the AWG-LCA must make appropriate and balanced decisions on all aspects of its mandate, especially on supporting developing countries to adapt to climate change and provision of adequate financing, transfer of technology to developing countries, and adequate mitigation efforts by developed countries in aggregate terms and comparable efforts for emission reduction between them.

The participants affirmed that under the Durban Platform, they are committed to making progress on discussions for the enhanced implementation of the Convention in the post-2020 period, and they reiterated that the process, as well as the outcome, of the Durban Platform in both work streams are under the Convention, and must therefore be in full accordance with its principles and provisions, especially equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

The recent outcome of the UN's Rio+20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro reaffirmed the principle of common, but differentiated, responsibilities and stated that parties should protect the climate system "on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities".

As developing countries experience many severe impacts of climate change, they share common interests and priorities, said the participants.

An increase in extreme weather events, including heavy rainfalls, extensive floods, storms and hurricanes, has underscored the need for global cooperation and actions on climate change, they added.

At the same time, for developing countries, the problem of climate change goes beyond issues of environmental sustainability as it also directly impacts on their survival and development aspirations.

The participants reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen the unity of G77 and China, and strengthen cooperation to fight the global problems of climate change in accordance with the principles and provisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the NDRC said.

India, China team up with developing nations at climate talks
Oct 23, 2012

NEW DELHI: In what could change the contours of climate change negotiations, India and China have successfully brought together a disparate group of developing countries to take on the EU and its new-found friends â€” small and least developed countries.

Its an odd set â€” Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Argentina and about three dozen other developing countries â€” but they have been stitched into a new climate alliance by India and China to help define the new global climate regime.

In a just concluded meeting of the new formation called the 'Like Minded Developing Countries on Climate Change' in Beijing, the group came out with a strong statement backing India's demand for integrating equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility into any new regime.

The group came together at the Durban climate meet in 2011, when emerging economies found the least developed countries and the association of small island countries more closely allied with the EU. India's initiative at Durban ensured that the EU did not get away with an outright decision to have a new global deal that India and China believed would have broken the existing climate convention's rules.

While the countries were not represented as a formal group at the talks, they continued to coordinate through negotiations in 2012 with the Beijing meeting, just before the annual climate change negotiations begin, culminating in a statement that is bound to gain attention from other nations.

Though the BASIC formation of four countries - India, China, South Africa and Brazil â€” along with the G77 group remains intact, the like-minded countries' group has already stirred feverish buzz at the climate talks.

After the decision at Durban by all countries to negotiate a new deal for post-2020 global climate regime, the year saw strong attempts to push a higher level of commitment from developing countries to reduce emissions in the run-up to 2020, delinking it from financial and technological flows from the rich countries.

The developing countries fought back to ensure that all future decisions, whether for the pre-2020 period or post-2020 era, are taken under the existing convention's principles which maintain the firewall between rich and poor countries.

While EU's alliance of small island states and least developed countries was seen in favour of the latter set, which would not have to undertake mitigation action considering their small economies, several developing countries expressed reservations against moving only on the issue of emissions reduction while stalling negotiations on the associated finance and technology transfer issues.

With the India and China-backed like-minded group reiterating these concerns, the upcoming meeting at Qatar is bound to see new battle-lines been drawn.

we were talking that, "there can't be two types of people and we will never let it happen." we will never accept the case that people based in the countries like US, EU, Australia can emit even up to 20tons/person carbon but even if India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Egypt type developing countries emit hardly around 2.0ton/person, they are forced to reduce their carbon emission level, or accept at the current level. Humans can't be defined in different grades and enough opportunities must be provided to the people living in the developing countries to grow and get good life like developed nations..........

this Carbon binding is concerned with the number of ACs, Cars, Industries etc in a country and there must be a logical way to bind developing countries under Carbon Emission target.I would welcome any step by world to force India to reduce its population to even 600mil, 50% of the current level by 2050, say, but we must not let the people of this country become the "Second Grade Humans" of world . and as per my next post, I have mentioned a logical way to bind India type developing countries in Carbon target, with putting in the categories of those countries who are part of OECD group but at the same time, they are more or closely densely populated like India

Here, as India is blamed for being little densely populated, ranked 33 out of around 200 countries, so we would welcome any step by the Indian diplomats/ politician to accept the Carbon limit legally binding India for the carbon emission per person which is â€˜averageâ€™ of the countries who are more or closely densely populated than India and are OECD member, regardless of any continent, as India would itself become similar to OECD countries within 10 to 15 years. But accepting less than the average of carbon emission per capita of OECD countries, who are more or closely densely populated than India, if this will be the case, then it will only mean that Indian Diplomats/ Politicians sold the future of Indian coming generations to the foreigners for their personal benefitsâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.

US is United states of America and EU27 combines 27 states and similarly India also has over 36 states. There must not be any comparison of overall emission by India or China to that of UK, France, Australia, or other smaller states. As, even if Green Land has very big area and Russia is around two times bigger in area than the USA, US will not accept Russia to emit 2 times more carbon than USA nor Canada will accept to emit equal to that of Greenland as both have similar size areas. There must be a logic behind legally binding agreement on carbon emission

The countries more or closely densely populated than India and are also member of OECD countries are as below:

and here, whenever Australian government discusses any bill to reduce carbon emission in Australia, Australian writers mainly give example of country like India whose Annual CO2 emissions for 2008 was 1,742,698 thousands of metric tons (ranked 4th in world after China, US and EU) as compare to around 400,000 thousands of metric tons of Annual Carbon Emission of Australia, while per capita carbon emission of India was hardly 1.4/1.8 mt per person in 2008. Even a rich South American country, Argentina, whose population is also very less like Australia at around 40million, with big land and abundant natural resources and very high HDI, all similar to Australia, but Argentina had only 4.8 mt per capita carbon emission in 2008????List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no limit of greed while Australian economy is mainly based on God gifted natural resources/ minerals. There is almost every day an article about Climate Change/ Carbon emission in the Australian newspapers but when it comes to compromise something from our pockets to reduce carbon emission, too many â€˜whyâ€™s is seen in the comments and then Australia as a nation finally gets agreed to keep emitting high carbon per capita. Even country like China/ India have taken considerable measures to reduce carbon emission while now Australia is widely known as a â€˜laggardâ€™ in the world in taking proper steps to reduce carbon emission, while the Australian government does publicity something like Australians are most worried for Climate Change problem of world. I have been reading articles in the Australian newspapers discussing Climate Change problems almost every day during last 4 years but they just donâ€™t want to compromise anything from their pockets to reduce carbon emission, which is mainly filled with earning from God gifted natural resources/ minerals........

^^ Well said. The developed nations need to cut down on emissions and bring it down, the onus is on them. Not on us.

Click to expand...

thanks for confirming

also I would like to clear to the readers of this thread that my this thread is not 'exactly' about Climate Change problem, but its more about the circumstances the Developing countries are facing due to the irresponsible behavior of Developed nations. amount of Carbon Emission per person is all about the number of ACs, Cars, Industries etc a country can have and there must be a logic to sign a Carbon binding agreement.......... there are too many forums discussing the Climate Change problem, I also have a thread in this regard while stating relation of high population and its impact on global climate as below, and hence to find out the ways to reduce the population of high population countries to reduce their overall emission level. but my this thread is mainly intended to expose the 'tactics', the Developed countries are using to bind the developing world under low emission so that they won't ever have enough opportunity to grow in future. this thread is also intended to find out, whether India and other similar developing countries are taking the right steps to defend interests of its civilians, while facing the challenges from developed nations? thanks

Hundreds of people protest in the halls of the venue of UN Climate Talks on December 9, 2011 to demand that nations not sign a â€œdeath sentenceâ€ during the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban. Developing countries are forging a common stand ahead of next month's climate talks in Doha. FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

Negotiators from 46 Least Developed Countries (LDC) met in Nairobi on Monday to develop a common position to be presented at the November climate talks in Doha. :thumb:

The technical experts said that developing nations will agree on shared goals which include establishment of a new climate treaty, financing and technologies required to accelerate green transition.

"We all have a responsibility in some way to address climate change in order to achieve sustainable development. Africa, small island developing states, and least developing countries, continue to suffer most from the effects of climate change," Kenya's Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Ali Mohammed said.

He regretted that the global South has borne the brunt of negative impacts of climate change despite minimal contribution to green house gases responsible for warming the planet.

"Our countries are the most vulnerable and yet have the least capacity to adapt due to inadequate energy services, infrastructure, agricultural technologies that are important for adaptation needs to be met," Mr Mohammed said.

A consultative and inclusive process is critical to advancing climate discussions at regional and global level. Mr Mohammed noted that climate change is a global challenge that requires a universal consensus to enable countries chart a new low carbon future.

"The multilateral process under the UNFCCC has and continues to provide vulnerable developing countries with a forum for participating in global discussions and agreements to achieve priority actions," he said.

Developing countries should strengthen their negotiation capacity to influence a positive outcome of the Doha climate talks. He noted that several roadblocks in previous negotiations have denied developing countries a chance to table their concerns.

"These preparatory meetings, however, form part of a crucial process required for our vulnerable countries to come up with a common and robust negotiating position ahead of COP 18 in Doha," Mr Mohammed stressed. :thumb:

The Legal Officer of Division of Environmental Law and Conventions, UNEP, Robert Ondowe, said that the Nairobi preparatory meeting will enable negotiators from developing countries present coherent proposals at Doha climate talks.

"Developing countries are in agreement that financing for climate adaptation, operationalisation of a green climate fund and the future of Kyoto protocol are key issues that should be prioritised at the Doha meeting," said Mr Ondowe.

The countries will still talk about the 2-degree target, but they will hardly follow their talk with action. On the contrary, while Europe's crisis-ridden countries are rediscovering classic industrial policy, emerging economies like China and India are turning into emissions giants.

China, for example, is responsible for 29 percent of worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions, and it's also the world's biggest air polluter. But the leadership in Beijing doesn't like this superlative, preferring to cite a different number, which shows that per capita, the 1.4 billion Chinese are responsible for only a fraction of what Americans and most Europeans emit.

Whatever a climate compromise looks like in the end, it will have to be characterized by "fairness, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities," said Xie Zhenhua, the head of Beijing's delegation, when he presented his strategy for the Doha climate conference last Wednesday. What he meant was that emissions reductions are ok, but everyone else should start first.

The Indians hold the same view. Although their delegation fundamentally voted for a reduction in greenhouse gases at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban last year, India has a price for that, which it will also present to the European Union in Doha: financial assistance and the transfer of environmental technology.

The United States also has other priorities. At the first press conference after his reelection, President Barack Obama fundamentally acknowledged the importance of climate protection. But then he promptly added that this could not get in the way of the anticipated economic recovery. "Jobs and growth" are Americans' biggest concern, said the president. "If the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that," he added.

For many years, at least the citizens of the EU could feel good about playing in the league of climate rescuers. At a number of UN conferences, the EU pushed forward with ambitious goals.

Of course, little of that will be in evidence in Doha. Originally, the EU had planned to commit itself to considerably tougher reduction targets for greenhouse gas. But Poland, a significant coal producer, was the first to thwart the plan. European Commissioner Hedegaard now admits that it is no longer feasible in the short term.

The countries will still talk about the 2-degree target, but they will hardly follow their talk with action. On the contrary, while Europe's crisis-ridden countries are rediscovering classic industrial policy, emerging economies like China and India are turning into emissions giants.

China, for example, is responsible for 29 percent of worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions, and it's also the world's biggest air polluter. But the leadership in Beijing doesn't like this superlative, preferring to cite a different number, which shows that per capita, the 1.4 billion Chinese are responsible for only a fraction of what Americans and most Europeans emit.

Whatever a climate compromise looks like in the end, it will have to be characterized by "fairness, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities," said Xie Zhenhua, the head of Beijing's delegation, when he presented his strategy for the Doha climate conference last Wednesday. What he meant was that emissions reductions are ok, but everyone else should start first.

The Indians hold the same view. Although their delegation fundamentally voted for a reduction in greenhouse gases at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban last year, India has a price for that, which it will also present to the European Union in Doha: financial assistance and the transfer of environmental technology.

The United States also has other priorities. At the first press conference after his reelection, President Barack Obama fundamentally acknowledged the importance of climate protection. But then he promptly added that this could not get in the way of the anticipated economic recovery. "Jobs and growth" are Americans' biggest concern, said the president. "If the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that," he added.

For many years, at least the citizens of the EU could feel good about playing in the league of climate rescuers. At a number of UN conferences, the EU pushed forward with ambitious goals.

Of course, little of that will be in evidence in Doha. Originally, the EU had planned to commit itself to considerably tougher reduction targets for greenhouse gas. But Poland, a significant coal producer, was the first to thwart the plan. European Commissioner Hedegaard now admits that it is no longer feasible in the short term.

look, per capita Carbon emission of "Industrialized nations" is too high, and as China has also got the state of being Industrialized, so its also on the higher side right now. while on the other hand India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia type emerging economies are having around 2.0tons/person Carbon emission, and they all are on the path of Industrialization too........

we want carbon binding on 'per person' criterion only, on per capita basis. if USA is the United States of America and EU27 has 27 states, then similarly India, China also have 30+ states. you can't compare India, China with Canada, Green Land, Australia type big lands but low population also. will Japan, Germany type highly industrialized countries accept Carbon emission binding based on 'area'???? there would be a logic to discuss Carbon Emission targets and the same formula, one formula, would be applied on Developed and Developing countries, both.

you can't say that by reducing 2.0tons/person, Australia/Canada/Germany/Japan/Saudi Arabia/Qatar etc type countries may come 'fair', whose per capita emission is close to 20.0tons/person right now. and hence you can't bind India, Brazil, Indonesia with their current 2.0tons/person Carbon emission this way

those who are Industrialized, have to reduced their current level, and those countries who are on the path of getting Industrialization, would be provided the enough opportunity to do so....

,India may also accept a Carbon Emission Level at the factor of '0.9' to that of China's Emission Level

Sir, I would like to give a clear meaning of my last post, why we want Carbon Binding on 'per capita'/ 'per person' basis only? and as I have said before in my posts, Carbon Emission Binding is all about numbers of ACs, Cars, Industries etc a country can have, and hence its all about the number of people, that certain country will have to handle.........

I mean, if US has 60mil ACs in its homes and 200mil Cars for 330mil population, with the status of highly industrialized nation, then why India also can't have at least 60mil ACs, 200mil Cars, and the same number of industries for its 1.2 billion population????? and with the fact that USA is United States of America and EU27 combines 27 states, India & China also have the same number of states........

one day I also said that if China has 1.34 billion population and India has 1.21 billion people then we may also accept India with the emission level at the factor of 1.21/1.34 = 0.9 to the Total Emission Level of China......

I mean, there would a logic behind anything we say on the Indian forums, or, we do know that China has successfully emerged as a true representative of developing countries and we would 'only' demand India to be legally bound with the Carbon Emission level at the factor of '0.9' of total Emission level, the Chinese government would accept for its own people. I mean, on just this Carbon Binding negotiation, China would take over on India and help India have as much emission level as they want for their own people, as below